coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Begunje pri Cerknici.
6.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant instituted a labour dispute against two companies before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking severance pay. He also lodged a request for an interim order to safeguard his claim since the companies were having financial difficulties.
7.  On 24 April 1997 the first-instance court rejected the request for an interim order. He appealed.
8.  On 22 May 1997 the appeal court remitted the decision on the interim order for reconsideration.
9.  On 18 June 1997 the first-instance court postponed a hearing on the request of the applicant.
10.  On 2 July 1997 the first-instance court held a hearing concerning the interim order.
11.  On 11 July 1997 the first-instance court rejected the request for an interim order.
12.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant lodged a preliminary submission and a second request for an interim order.
13.  On 16 December 1998 the first-instance court rejected his request for an interim order.
14.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant lodged a request to accelerate the proceedings.
15.  On 24 November 1999 he lodged a third request for an interim order.
16.  On 6 December 1999 the first-instance court rejected his request. He appealed.
17.  On 23 December 1999 his appeal was rejected.
18.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant withdrew his claim against the second defendant and lodged a fourth request for an interim order. His request was rejected on 4 May 2000. He appealed. His appeal was rejected on 23 May 2000.
19.  On 19 July 2000 the first-instance court issued a decision on termination of proceedings concerning the second defendant.
20.  On 15 November 2000 the first hearing was held.
21.  On 24 January 2001 a hearing was postponed on request of both parties due to the absence of witnesses.
22.  On 7 March 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing and rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The applicant appealed.
23.  On 21 November 2002 the Higher Labour and Social Court remitted the case for re-examination. The appeal court found that the first-instance court failed to establish the facts correctly and issued the judgment prematurely.
24.  Between 2 July 2003 and 3 September 2003 the first-instance court held two hearings.
25.  On 15 October 2003 the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The applicant appealed.
26.  On 3 March 2005 the appeal was rejected. He lodged an appeal on points of law.
27.  On 15 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case to first-instance. The Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in the application of the law.
28.  On 10 March 2006 the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the applicant’s request. The defendant appealed.
29.  On 11 July 2006 the appeal court upheld the appeal in part and amended the operative part of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Lepoglava Penitentiary.
5.  On 14 June 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Rijeka County Court along with other twenty two accused, on charges of drug trafficking, offering illegal substances to a number of persons and extortion.
6.   On 5 January 2006 the Rijeka County Court pronounced a judgement whereby it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.
7.  On 5 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from the Rijeka Prison (Zatvor u Rijeci) to the Zagreb Prison (Zatvor u Zagrebu).
8.  On 4 September 2006 a written copy of the judgement was served on the applicant’s representative.
9.  Both the applicant and the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Rijeci) appealed against the first-instance judgement.
10.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) allowed an appeal by the State Attorney’s Office and increased the applicant’s prison sentence to nine years and six months.
11.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). He claimed that the Supreme Court’s judgment was in breach of his constitutional rights to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to free communication with his defence counsel, and that illegally obtained evidence had been used in the criminal proceedings against him.
12.  On 23 December 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 January 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  In November 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) against her neighbour, Ms. G., disputing her right to use a plot of land.
6.  On 9 February 1999 Ms G. lodged a counterclaim, alleging that she was so entitled..
7.  On 29 June 2006, following one remittal of the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination, the proceedings were completed by a final ruling of the Supreme Court finding against the applicant.
8.  In the course of proceedings six forensic technical examinations were conducted at the parties’ requests.
7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Novocherkassk, the Rostov Region.
8.  She is a widow of a military officer. She sued the military commissariats of Novocherkassk and the Rostov Region for recalculation of her pension on account of the increase of the monetary compensation paid in respect of a food allowance.
9.  On 18 August 2004 the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit of Novocherkassk granted her claim and ordered the military commissariat of the Rostov Region to pay the applicant 17,216.06 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears, as well as to readjust future payments in line with the increase of the food allowance. The claim against the commissariat of Novocherkassk was dismissed.
10.  The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force. It has not been executed.
11.  According to the Government, at some point the military prosecutor’s office started an inquiry into lawfulness of several sets of court proceedings concerning military pension arrears throughout the Rostov region.
12.  On 14 October 2004 the defendant lodged a request for supervisory review of the case.
13.  On 13 January 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment on the ground of a violation of substantive law and remitted the case to the President of the Novocherkassk Town Court for the transfer to a different court for a fresh examination. The Presidium found, in particular, that the Justice of the Peace incorrectly calculated the amount of the food allowance, having thus misinterpreted the material law.
14.  On 28 April 2005 the Justice of the Peace of the 5th Court Circuit of Novocherkassk discontinued the proceedings on the ground of the applicant’s repeated failure to appear. The applicant did not appeal against the decision, and it entered into force.
15.  According to the Government, at some point several unspecified military officials of the Rostov Region had been charged with and convicted of negligent attitude to duties which had caused damage to the State (Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The Government did not provide any documents or further details in this respect.
4.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1948, and 1946 respectively and live in Syktyvkar.
5.  On 14 February 2003 the Syktyvkar Town Court granted the applicants’ claim against the local administration for provision of municipal housing and ordered to provide each of them with one room. The court found, inter alia, that one of the walls of the building where the applicants resided was destroyed and the building was at risk of collapse. The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final.
6.  On 19 March 2003 the local administration informed the applicants that the judgment in their favour could not be enforced because neither housing nor appropriate budget funds were available.
7.  On 5 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings were opened.
8.  On 16 May 2003 the local administration informed the applicants that the judgment could not be enforced because of the lack of housing.
9.  On 17 December 2004 the first applicant was offered a two-room flat. The applicant accepted the offer.
10.  On 25 February 2005 the second and third applicants were offered a two-room flat. The applicants accepted.
11.  On 23 and 24 June 2005 the bailiffs decided to close the enforcement proceedings as the judgement of 14 February 2003 being duly enforced. It appears that the applicants did not appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 24 April 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant along with other two suspects, with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C.
6.  On 19 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court joined the case with another case (1999/372) which was already pending before it.
7.  On 29 December 2001 the applicant was detained on account of being a member of the DHKP-C.
8.  On 31 December 2001 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court brought a further case against the applicant before the Istanbul State Security Court.
9.  On 8 March 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court joined all cases against the applicant under the file number 1999/372.
10.  On 3 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of membership of the DHKP-C and sentenced him to twelve years and six months imprisonment.
11.  On 25 August 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.
12.  In 2004, following a constitutional amendment, state security courts were abolished and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 10 September 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court held the first hearing in the case.
13.  On 8 April 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court released the applicant from detention
14.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Bila Tserkva, Ukraine.
7.  According to the applicant, for many years she had been living as part of a family with her stepfather, mother and half-brother and wanted to associate herself more closely with them by taking the surname of her stepfather and also a patronymic derived from his forename.
8.  On 24 March 2004 the applicant lodged a request with the Civil Status Registration Office in Bila Tserkva (hereinafter “the Registration Office”) seeking to change her patronymic from Volodymyrivna (Володимирівна) to Yuriyivna (Юріївна).
9.  By a letter of 27 March 2004 the Registration Office refused the applicant’s request, referring to the Rules on Civil Status Registration in Ukraine, approved by the Ministry of Justice, which provided that the patronymic of a physical person could only be changed in the event of a change of forename by his or her father.
10.  On 23 April 2004 the applicant challenged this refusal in the Bila Tserkva Local Court. She complained that her patronymic, along with her forename and family name, was part of her full name and she had the right to change it. She maintained that the refusal violated her constitutional rights, was unconstitutional and was not based on law. She further contended that she had good reasons for changing her patronymic - to disassociate herself from her biological father and associate herself more closely with her stepfather and half-brother.
11.  On 5 May 2004 the applicant changed her original surname from Glazkova to the surname of her stepfather, Garnaga, which was also the surname of her mother and half-brother.
12.  On 10 June 2004 the Bila Tserkva Local Court found that the Registration Office had acted in accordance with the law, in compliance with Article 149 of the Family Code of 2002, and so dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that a change of patronymic was only legally possible when the father of the person concerned had previously changed his forename. Therefore, given that the applicant’s father had not changed his forename, the applicant’s request for change of her patronymic had not been in compliance with the law. The court also noted that the Rules on Civil Status Registration provided more detailed regulation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Civil Code and the Family Code and did not conflict with them.
13.  On 3 December 2004 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court, holding that its conclusions were based on law.
14.  On 31 October 2006 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant on points of law. It held, in particular, that the argument put forward by the applicant that the new Family Code limited the right to change a patronymic was based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of Article 191 of the Family Code of 1969.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  All applicants were former employees of “LETEKS” u stečaju (the debtor), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.
7.  Since the debtor failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards employees, on unspecified date, the applicants instituted civil proceedings against it.
8.  On 18 April 2008 the Municipal Court in Leskovac ordered the debtor to pay them:
i. the salary arrears due between 1 July 2001 and 13 July 2003, plus interest; and
ii. 376,520 Serbian Dinars (RSD) for their costs and expenses.
9.  On 3 October 2010 this judgment became final.
10.  In the period between 17 November 2008 and 16 December 2008 each applicant filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgment.
11.  The Municipal Court in Leskovac ultimately accepted the applicants’ requests and issued the enforcement orders respectively. The essential information as to the enforcement proceedings in respect of each application are indicated in the Annex.
12.  On 25 January 2011 the Commercial Court in Leskovac opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 47/2010).
13.  The applicants duly submitted their respective claims.
14.  On an unspecified date the applicants’ claims based on the judgment of 18 April 2008 were recognised.
15.  The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing.
16.  On 5 December 2006 the debtor was privatised.
17.  On 8 April 2008 the contract for the sale of the debtor was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.
18.  As of June 2008 the debtor has been comprised of predominantly State-owned capital.
19.  On 31 October 2010, the applicants filed a constitutional appeal.
20.  The case is still pending before the Constitutional Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in İzmir.
6.  Following her marriage to Atila Abdulkadiroğlu on 6 July 1996, the applicant, whose surname was “Leventoğlu” prior to her marriage, had to take her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her academic and professional life, she continued to use it; however, she could not use it in any official documents.
7.  An amendment to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997 meant that married women acquired the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname. The applicant preferred not to make use of that option because, in her view, the amendment in question did not satisfy her request, which was to use her maiden name on its own.
8.  Following the enactment of the new Civil Code on 22 November 2001, Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).
9.  On 26 September 2005 the applicant brought proceedings before the İzmir Court of First Instance seeking permission to use only her maiden name, Leventoğlu.
10.  On 6 December 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that, pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not permitted to use their maiden name alone.
11.  The applicant appealed against that judgment and on 21 March 2006 it was upheld by the Court of Cassation. A request by the applicant for the proceedings in her case to be reopened was further rejected by the same court on 14 July 2006. That decision was served on the applicant on 11 August 2006.
4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Tokod.
5.  On 8 August 1994, the applicant, as the successful bidder in privatisation proceedings, acquired shares and non-current assets of a previously state-owned public company limited by shares.
6.  On 20 February 1995 a competing bidder business entity challenged before the Budapest Regional Court the validity of the privatisation contract and the sale and purchase agreement concluded by the applicant company.
7.  On 3 April 1998 the Budapest Regional Court delivered a partial judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action.
8.  On 4 June 1999 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, held a hearing, quashed the partial judgment and remitted the case to the first instance.
9.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Regional Court delivered a partial judgment on 1 July 2002. This judgment was quashed again by the Supreme Court on 9 May 2003.
10.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Regional Court dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims.
11.  In its judgment of 15 April 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, partially upheld the first-instance judgment and as to the remainder of the claims, quashed the Budapest Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first instance.
12.  The plaintiff lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which upheld the partial judgment of the Budapest Court of Appeal 15 November 2010.
13.  As to the remainder of the case, the Budapest Regional Court gave a partial judgment on 29 August 2012. The applicant appealed. The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Simferopol.
6.  The applicant was born with congenital facial injury and was diagnosed with a “midline cranial cleft”. Between 1990 and 1997 she repeatedly underwent surgery in a clinic in the United States of America, following which her cranial disorders were mostly cured. However, owing to the extensive surgery, the applicant developed a mental illness. Since then she has needed regular supervision in the United States clinic.
7.  In 2007 the applicant’s father applied to the Simferopol District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the District Court”), seeking to have her deprived of legal capacity on the ground that she suffered from serious mental illness.
8.  Following a request by the District Court, on 5 June 2007 a forensic psychiatric expert issued an opinion stating that the applicant suffered from a chronic mental illness, namely paranoid schizophrenia, which prevented her from comprehending and controlling her actions.
9.  On 10 July 2007 the District Court deprived the applicant of her legal capacity. The decision was not appealed against and became final.
10.  On 21 November 2007 the applicant’s sister was assigned as the applicant’s guardian (опікун).
11.  Gradually, the applicant’s mental health improved, so that on 3 April 2008 she took up a position at a local factory.
12.  In 2009 the applicant’s guardian applied to the District Court for restoration of the applicant’s legal capacity. However, on 30 October 2009 the application was dismissed without being considered on the merits owing to the guardian’s repeated failure to appear in court.
13.  On 1 November 2010 the applicant applied on her own to the District Court, seeking restoration of her legal capacity. She specified that Article 241 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which did not provide for the right for an incapacitated person to submit such an application, was not compatible with international legal standards and was discriminatory.
14.  On 4 November 2010 the District Court returned the application to the applicant without considering it on the merits, noting that, by virtue of Article 121 § 3 and Article 241 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant was not entitled to submit such an application.
15.   On 12 January 2011 the court of appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 4 November 2010 noting that Article 241 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not provide the applicant with the right to lodge an application for restoration of her legal capacity. The District Court had therefore lawfully returned the application without considering it on the merits, as required by Article 121 § 3 of that Code. On 12 March 2011 the court of cassation dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
5.  The applicants’ birth years are indicated in the annex below. They all live in Sinop.
6.  On various dates in 2005 and 2006 the applicants brought separate sets of proceedings against their employer, claiming compensation for their unpaid salaries.
7.  In 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively, the Sinop Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, sitting as a Labour Court, delivered its judgments, ruling in favour of the applicants[1]. The court stated that in addition to the compensation, the employer company had to pay proportional court fees[2] ranging from 66 to 785 Turkish liras (TRY)[3].
8.  On 20 October 2008 the applicants requested copies of the writs of execution in order to enforce the judgments in their favour, as the employer company had not paid the required court fees. They argued that the company had gone bankrupt and that they would not be able to obtain the compensation awarded to them by the court at a later date.
9.  On 6 November 2008 the Sinop Civil Court of General Jurisdiction rejected the applicants’ request. The court stated that pursuant to section 28(1)(a) of the Law on Fees (Law no. 492), the writs could not be served on the applicants unless all the fees were paid, either by the employer company or by the applicants themselves in the event that the former failed to do so.
10.  The judgments in favour of the applicants have not been executed to date.
4.  The applicant is a privately held company limited by shares with its seat in Budapest.
5.  In the context of a real estate dispute, on 10 September 1993 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court. The litigation concerned in essence the allegedly unlawful use of business premises by another company and the resultant damages.
6.  A first-instance partial judgment was quashed on appeal in October 1998. In the resumed proceedings the District Court gave interim judgment in April 1999, upheld on appeal in June 2000.
7.  Other aspects of the case were adjudicated by the District Court in February 2001. This decision was upheld on appeal in October 2001 and by the Supreme Court on 15 January 2004.
8.  As regards the remainder of the claims, the District Court found for the respondents on 15 December 2005. On 27 February 2007 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment. Relying essentially on documentary evidence, the Regional Court held in essence, that the applicant had no locus standi to seek the nullification of the rental agreement in question.
9.  On 28 January 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review.
The applicant submitted that subsequently criminal proceedings had been initiated on a charge of corruption against the judge involved in the principal proceedings. This case is apparently still pending.